I say who gives a rip! Singles are just as good as twins. Reliability of jet engines are pretty much perfect in a practical sense. 

Single engine=less to go wrong. 

I'm guessing twin engine must be too much for you to manage alone. Kudos to you for admitting it and you and your pax are better off for it.

MR EGO

I've always heard people who fly twins do so becaue they can't hanle autorotations.

but if we have a choice about whether to auto or not, weirdly, we choose not.

autos are so much fun!

Single engine life = always ready for a thrill

Duel engine life = boring as hell, but do get paid more

A second engine will give me time to consider all my options. A single eliminates most options and with a fraction of the time for thinking about it. 

"Single vs Twin" I care. I will always take more engines, system redundancy IF! the company training and support is appropriate.

The AS355 isn't just an AS350 with an extra engine. The 212/412 aren't just 205s with an extra engine. It's the systems management that needs management training.

An example, third hand- high side or low side engine failure in a Twinstar can be a challenge to manage (never experienced one in anything else). A qualified pilot in the passenger seat watched the PIC pull the good engine down because the appropriate diagnostic routine had not been adequately drilled inthe pilot's head. A Twinstar can maintain level flight, even climb slowly on one engine at that altitude, but it can't if you limit the good engine. Forced landing, extensive maintenance.

Single engine is stick and managment. Multi is management and stick.

Last thought- two engines mean twice the risk of an engine issue. And everything downstream of the engine...

I think if I had ever had a low or high-side failure in a twin helicopter, I would have screwed the pooch.

We never had enough training on handling those different types of failures.  You only get one shot when one engine misbehaves.  You have to be right and you must act quickly.  Not being a genius, prolly would have simply treated the low engine as a failed engine.  If I got the coin toss right, I woulda been a hero.

I went 30 years accident-free and old-fashioned luck was part of that clean record.  And we never had enough training.  Of the two types of twins I flew (for 10 years) there was no simulator, therefore no real practice handling those emergencies.

That's my "problem" with twins.

a problem with the helicopter. Just the training.

2x as dangerous

only gets you to crash site

That's part of the attraction 

that one only gets you to the crash site. bro.

That's the one that gets you to the airport of your choice.

I flew twins in the GOM and it gave me a great sense of comfort knowing I had two engines. Then I took a job flying a 206 in south Alabama. Some of our flights were late at night, over some heavily wooded state forests and other sparsely populated areas...meaning friggin' *DARK*.  Guess what, people turn their house lights off after midnight.  And with motion-sensor porch lights, even those are off.  So I'd fly along, thinking about an engine failure and the old, "turn the landing light on/turn the landing light off" joke. Then I thought about a tail rotor failure...or a trans chip light with secondary indications...or some of the other problems that might necessitate a landing RIGHT NOW.  

Then I didn't worry so much about the engine failing anymore. 

Turbine engines are an order of magnitude more reliable than piston engines of old.  Olderndirt talks about the redundancy that twins bring, and he's right.  But there's still only one transmission, and one tail rotor. If something hasn't already gone wrong, it's about to.  Solution: I don't fly helicopters at night over dark, inhospitable terrain anymore. I was asking for trouble so much, I'm surprised it didn't find me.

you heard about a helicopter force landing in inhospitable terrain. Your fears were unfounded.

You're right, that kind of stuff "never" happens.  That doesn't mean we don't think about the possibilities.  We just don't dwell on them.  When I was at PHI, I had two, yes *two* tail rotor failures that were not material failures but maintenance errors.  Fortunately, one occured just after I had set down and the other happened just after I lifted to a hover, both on offshore platforms, both would have been ugly in flight. 

Well-maintained engines don't just up and quit either, especially RR-250's.  For that matter, I can't remember the last high-side or low-side governor failure that made the rounds. But we think about it.  Again, we just don't obsess about it.  

Point being, the "single v. twin" thing just isn't much of an issue anymore for a VFR helicopter. They're both about equally risky in my book.

"Olderndirt talks about the redundancy that twins bring, and he's right.  But there's still only one transmission, and one tail rotor."

So, if we can't assure you of complete and total redundancy...you'd rather have none. Gotcha.

I'm with you, old fella, I'd rather be lucky.

but I'd rather have a single engine failure in a twin than a single, which I have experienced over inhospitable terrain.

and you don't. That's all.